What is with refusing to admit slavery is wrong?

[Redbeard The Pink]

This is what disturbs me so much pinky, is your attitude to want to brush off this very real and active type of slavery, just because a white man is not beating a black man in a cotton field somewhere in a southern state.

2 things. First off, I haven't mentioned race really much at all, and chattel slavery (which is how you spell that, by the way) does not have to be racially motivated (although it looks like it was for the Jews at least partially, hence the different laws concerning the treatment of Hebrew slaves as opposed to others).

Second, in what ways am I "brushing off" wage slavery? I've said multiple times that it's a problem that needs to be addressed and gotten rid of. In what way is that brushing it off? What I'm saying is that your claim of modern wage slavery being worse than institutionalized chattel slavery is unfounded and indefensible.

---

According to the verse, sellers of slaves should be put to death, so no, they couldn't reasonably buy from them and claim to be following the Bible.

No. According to the verse, people who kidnap men to sell and/or keep as slaves should be put to death. It makes no such admonition against all slave traders.

You need to support this claim regarding Israel's slaves. Also, there's a difference between buying slaves and winning them through conquest.

Yeah, there is, which is why I mentioned them both separately, and I'll note that both of those things are different from kidnapping. As for support, here's a pretty good breakdown from JewishVirtualLibrary.org. I'm not gonna go over the whole thing in detail, but of particular note is the passage from Leviticus 25 that encourages the Israelites to buy bondsmen and bondswomen from other countries.

There's also mention of the fact that Hebrews had to be court-ordered into slavery or volunteer themselves to pay off a debt, and the fact that they are to be let free eventually; alien slaves, on the other hand, served in perpetuity as far as we can tell and didn't have the same bodily rights as Hebrew slaves, either. Given all this information, it stands to reason that non-Hebrew slaves would be more common and more available than Hebrew ones, and that most of them would have been bought from slavers rather than obtained some other way. Most nations with legalized slavery bought the bulk of their slaves, so it's really not an unreasonable claim to state that Israel was probably the same way.

The word used can refer to mankind in general (e.g.Gen 7:23), same as the English word.

Sure it can. I'm sure that's what they meant. Care to support that?

[John V]

No. According to the verse, people who kidnap men to sell and/or keep as slaves should be put to death. It makes no such admonition against all slave traders.

I think "if he is found in his hand" indicates otherwise, and a sincere person would not make the verse of no effect just because an intermediary trader was involved.

Yeah, there is, which is why I mentioned them both separately, and I'll note that both of those things are different from kidnapping. As for support, here's a pretty good breakdown from JewishVirtualLibrary.org. I'm not gonna go over the whole thing in detail, but of particular note is the passage from Leviticus 25 that encourages the Israelites to buy bondsmen and bondswomen from other countries.

Do you agree with the first statement on that page: The Hebrew term for slave, eved, is a direct derivation from the Hebrew verb la'avöd ("to work"), thus, the slave in Jewish law is really only a worker or servant.

There's also mention of the fact that Hebrews had to be court-ordered into slavery or volunteer themselves to pay off a debt, and the fact that they are to be let free eventually; alien slaves, on the other hand, served in perpetuity as far as we can tell and didn't have the same bodily rights as Hebrew slaves, either. Given all this information, it stands to reason that non-Hebrew slaves would be more common and more available than Hebrew ones, and that most of them would have been bought from slavers rather than obtained some other way. Most nations with legalized slavery bought the bulk of their slaves, so it's really not an unreasonable claim to state that Israel was probably the same way.

This is speculation. So far we don't know how many foreign slaves were typically in Israel, or how many of those were prisoners of war as opposed to purchased.

The word used can refer to mankind in general (e.g.Gen 7:23), same as the English word.
Sure it can. I'm sure that's what they meant. Care to support that?

I did support it with the citation.

Gen 7
And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

"Man" here clearly refers to women and children as well, as the fold wasn't selective to adult men only. The Hebrew word used here is the same as in the Exodus verse (Strong's number H376).

[robvalue]

Ah it's OK, they weren't dead. They'll be up and back to slave duty in a couple of days. That's cool, I think. I gotta go easy on the backfists.

[CapnAwesome]

Why do religionists refuse to condemn slavery? I hate arguments like "it was normal back then", "everyone else was doing it" or "so-and-so put rules in place to make sure slaves were well treated". Why can't they just admit the author(s) of their religious text(s) were influenced by moral relativism? Why is it so hard for so many people to say that slavery is wrong?

I think this coin can be flipped a couple of ways. Yeah it's crazy how religious people who are moral absolutists suddenly become moral relativists when you point out the terrible morals of either their texts or their founders. Muslims (duh!) are the worst about it. Maybe because their founded was so obviously immoral.

I'm an Atheist but I also believe that morality isn't relative. Slavery isn't wrong because everybody says it's wrong. It's wrong because it causes so much pain and suffering.

[abaris]

Maybe because their founded was so obviously immoral.

Not more or less than other influencal people at his time. Western or Eastern.

Mohammed was simply the embodyment of an influencal rich man of his time. They all were child fuckers and in their majority warlords.

[CapnAwesome]

Maybe because their founded was so obviously immoral.

Not more or less than other influencal people at his time. Western or Eastern.

Mohammed was simply the embodyment of an influencal rich man of his time. They all were child fuckers and in their majority warlords.

Yeah, but you aren't less immoral because you are surrounded by other immoral people. ISIS isn't immoral because of some sort of comparison with other people, they are immoral because they spread pain and suffering. The same thing applies to the past.

I've also wondered when Atheists say that Muhammad wasn't immoral because he was basically the standard leader of the time, does that make Jesus as portrayed by the bible more moral than average?

[abaris]

Yeah, but you aren't less immoral because you are surrounded by other immoral people. ISIS isn't immoral because of some sort of comparison with other people, they are immoral because they spread pain and suffering. The same thing applies to the past.

Not less immoral by our standards. But he's not an example of immorality compared to all the other religious founders or revered leaders of the time. As this thread shows. It was a worldwide barbaric society by our standards. Roughly at the same time, the Franks rose to power. Using the same means as Mohammed. Charlemagne, the slaughterer of Saxons, lived and rules a short hundred years later. And he's highly revered in religious history. And one of the reasons why he slaughtered the Saxons was the fact they were stubborn heathens.

So there's no examplary immorality there, compared to what others brought upon us.

[ReptilianPeon]

---

Why do religionists refuse to condemn slavery? I hate arguments like "it was normal back then", "everyone else was doing it" or "so-and-so put rules in place to make sure slaves were well treated". Why can't they just admit the author(s) of their religious text(s) were influenced by moral relativism? Why is it so hard for so many people to say that slavery is wrong?

I think this coin can be flipped a couple of ways. Yeah it's crazy how religious people who are moral absolutists suddenly become moral relativists when you point out the terrible morals of either their texts or their founders. Muslims (duh!) are the worst about it. Maybe because their founded was so obviously immoral.

I'm an Atheist but I also believe that morality isn't relative. Slavery isn't wrong because everybody says it's wrong. It's wrong because it causes so much pain and suffering.

---

A better way of phrasing it would have been to perhaps have used the words "subjective morality" instead of "moral relativism". But yes, life is preferable to death, pleasure is preferable to pain, etc. Slavery goes against the Golden Rule, which is one reason to be against it.

[CapnAwesome]

Yeah, but you aren't less immoral because you are surrounded by other immoral people. ISIS isn't immoral because of some sort of comparison with other people, they are immoral because they spread pain and suffering. The same thing applies to the past.

Not less immoral by our standards. But he's not an example of immorality compared to all the other religious founders or revered leaders of the time. As this thread shows. It was a worldwide barbaric society by our standards. Roughly at the same time, the Franks rose to power. Using the same means as Mohammed. Charlemagne, the slaughterer of Saxons, lived and rules a short hundred years later. And he's highly revered in religious history. And one of the reasons why he slaughtered the Saxons was the fact they were stubborn heathens.

So there's no examplary immorality there, compared to what others brought upon us.

Here is the problem I have with this argument. I don't think the standards matter. Why would they? I don't think that morality depends on context. We certainly don't phrase it that way today. For example if there are people who are geographically isolated, say Muslims in the middle east, we don't give them a moral pass because that's what their community tells them is okay. It's the same with Muhammad. I don't think that morality has changed at all. Slavery was immoral in the past because it caused pain and suffering to people. Slavery is immoral today because it causes pain and suffering to people. It's just that our understanding of it has advanced.

I also think that if you are a moral relativist you have to admit that Christianity was morally advanced for the time.

[abaris]

I don't think that morality has changed at all. Slavery was immoral in the past because it caused pain and suffering to people. Slavery is immoral today because it causes pain and suffering to people. It's just that our understanding of it has advanced.

I also think that if you are a moral relativist you have to admit that Christianity was morally advanced for the time.

Oh, please. Read Paul and what he had to say on slavery. That they should obey even a cruel master. Morally advanced, my ass.

And what's the point to judge the past by our moral standards? As a historian you virtually go blind if you do, since you fail to understand the motivations of certain societies. They lived by what they thought was the best for their particular society. By our standards it seems barbaric, but it's nothing but an emotional statement to apply our standards on people who lived and died more than a thousand years ago.

Morality is always changing. And it is and never was the same in every region of the world. By the standards of most Western countries the enforcement of capital punishment in the USA is barbaric. The whole punitive system is. So there aren't even the same standards within the Western world in our present day and age.